Prisoner’s Hunger Strike Reaches One Year Mark
by Christine Stuart | September 16, 2008 11:10 AM
Posted to Courts
(Updated 2:38 p.m.) It’s been one year since inmate William B. Coleman stopped eating solid food to protest his rape conviction.
“Today, to mark the one year anniversary of his hunger strike, Bill has stopped taking all fluids,” a statement from Mr. Coleman’s family in Great Britain revealed Tuesday.
“This is a decision that has not been easy as his family and supporters have worked hard to prevent this from happening over the past four years. However, we were unable to convince him to stop,” the family’s statement says.
Mr. Coleman’s family says he’s looking for a fair and neutral investigation into “Connecticut’s broken judicial system that ruins many people’s lives.”
More specifically, Mr. Coleman, a British citizen and former Waterbury resident, is protesting his rape conviction. Mr. Coleman was convicted by a jury in 2005 for sexually assaulting his wife, who he divorced in 2004 after a tumultuous nine-year marriage. The rape allegation was made by his wife three days after Mr. Coleman filed for sole custody of their two children.
According to the Waterbury Republican-American’s coverage of the original trial, no hospital examination of Mrs. Coleman was ever performed for the investigation by Waterbury police, and a polygraph test showed that Mr. Coleman had answered truthfully in the negative when asked if he had raped his wife. However, polygraph tests generally are not admissible as evidence in Connecticut.
“Mr. Coleman is convinced that his situation is not at all unique and that many parents, in the course of custody disputes, suffer false accusations and convictions. As a result, Mr. Coleman believes Connecticut’s judicial system is broken and corrupt,” court documents state.
Coleman’s first ex-wife Angela, who refused to give her last name, said in a phone interview from Great Britain Tuesday afternoon that she’s concerned about Mr. Coleman’s decision not to consume any more fluids.
“He can be quite stubborn,” she said.
She said she did everything she could during his initial trial when the allegations of rape by his second ex-wife were made against him. She said she even spoke with a court social worker and agreed to a video conference, so she could be a character witness for him in court. She said she can’t believe the trial “was all on her say.”
She said Mr.Coleman believes his second ex-wife may have been suffering from postpartum depression at the time she made the allegations.
In January Superior Court Judge James Graham granted the state Department of Correction permission to force feed Mr. Coleman, but he was successful in getting the American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut to step in a few months later to ask the court to vacate its decision and allow him to continue his hunger strike.
The case filed by the ACLU this summer argues that the court’s decision to grant the state permission to force feed Mr. Coleman violates his free speech and privacy rights. In court documents, the ACLU argues that on Nov. 26, 2007, Mr. Coleman executed a living will in which he says he will not consent to being force fed.
Nevertheless, the state may exercise its power at any moment to insert a feeding tube through his nose, down his throat and to his stomach.
“A person has a constitutional right to determine what happens to his or her body,” David McGuire, ACLU-CT’s staff attorney, said in a press release shortly after filing the motion in July. “Inserting a feeding tube against Mr. Coleman’s will is a violation of his right to bodily integrity and his right to deny medical treatment.”
A court hearing on the ACLU’s motion was scheduled near the end of August, but it was postponed until December when a bench trial on the constitutional arguments can be made, Mr. McGuire said in a telephone interview Tuesday afternoon.
Mr. McGuire, who visited Coleman today at Osborn, said his client is “worn out.” He said that aside from the physical toll of the hunger strike, the ordeal has taken “an amazing emotional drain” on his client. He said he hopes the Correction Department continues to respect his client’s right to deny any medical treatment because in addition to his privacy rights, Mr. Coleman’s “political protest would be silenced if they decided to force feed him.”
McGuire said he’s looking forward to a full trial on the merits of Mr. Coleman’s case, which would be the first time this constitutional right was tried in the state of Connecticut.
In January, Dr. Edward Blanchette, director of clinical operations for the Correction Department, said Mr. Coleman was maintaining his strength by drinking milk, juice, and water.
Deputy Correction Department Commissioner Brian Murphy testified on January 14, just five-months into Mr. Coleman’s hunger strike, that hunger strikes were fairly common among prisoners, but “as far as I’m aware, I have not seen any that have gone on this long.”
Correction Department spokesman Brian Garnett said in a written statement Tuesday that he is not certain whether Mr. Coleman’s is the longest prisoner hunger strike on record.
“That is a stat that we do not keep,” Garnett wrote. “The injunctive relief we were granted allowed us to utilize the necessary means to protect his health. To this point there has been no need to force feed him.”
Up to June 25, Mr. Coleman was in the medical ward at the MacDougall-Walker Correctional facility, but since then he has been integrated back into the general population at Osborn Correctional Center where he is housed in a two-person cell.
Meanwhile, Mr. Coleman’s family and friends have set up a Web site to let people know about the case.
Click here, here, and here to read our previous coverage of this case. And here to read Mr. Coleman’s statement of protest, which is included in the ACLU’s motion.
Comments (14)
Posted by: William Doriss | September 16, 2008 12:42 PM
"Connecticut's broken judicial system that ruins many people's lives."
Of that William Coleman is entirely correct.
Mr. Coleman believes "Connecticut's judicial system is broken and corrupt," court documents state.
Correct again.
Posted by: close friend | September 16, 2008 3:59 PM
this is the first time i have seen a picture of bill for some years and although the bottom one is when he was a lot heavier the top one does not look like the man i knew. being actively involved with his case his ex wife should be ashamed about the lies she told and what she has done to him. but i guess people like her dont have morals or standards. i prey for him every day
Posted by: cedarhillresident | September 16, 2008 4:25 PM
close friend,
I am not fimilar with this case. But one guestion..do you believe it is rape when a husband forces him self on his wife or is is a marital duty of the women to have sex??
Posted by: NewHavenLover | September 17, 2008 4:39 AM
Sorry cedarhillresident but shouldn't the question be "did he rape his wife or did she lie to get custody of the children?"
Posted by: cj kinsley | September 17, 2008 8:00 AM
I too am shocked at Bill's appearance, as I remember him looking the way the bottom photo shows him. But I am not surprised to see him this thin.
I am one of Bill's friends and supporters, and am VERY familiar with this case.
Let me respond to cedarhill.
Although he was convicted, he truely IS innocent of the charges, which is why there was never any investigation or why his now ex-wife never sought medical treatment.
If Bill loses his life due to this protest, it will be yet another travesty of justice. We have fought right along with him and as the article says, have tried many many times to attempt to convince him to continue the fight, but this is the best way he sees to do that. As much as we love Bill, it is his life & decision & as heartbroken as I am over this, I have to let him make his own decisions.
To answer your question, I believe it is NOT the marital duty of the wife to have sex. No means no whether you're married or not.
If any of you reading this have any direct contact with Bill, please tell him we love him!
Posted by: Doug | September 17, 2008 12:04 PM
If he's not taking any liquids then that means time is short if no one intervenes to force feed him. I guess the question at this point is whether his accuser will come forward to recant. If she lied and Mr. Coleman dies, then it's on her head. I'm assuming she won't agree to take a polygraph herself? Has anyone made her aware of the situation? Do their children know that their dad is in prison on the verge of death?
Posted by: close friend | September 17, 2008 1:26 PM
doug - bill has had a polygraph and a phsyco sexual test, both he past. she was asked to take a polygraph and refused. his children are young i i am sure she has poisoned them in some way. however there is all his family members, friends or supporters who will ensure that one day they will know the truth and they will have all the evidence given to them.
Posted by: New Haven Lover | September 17, 2008 2:17 PM
Thanks, Close Friend, for the information. It sounds more and more like he is a victim of Sexual Allegations In Divorce (SAID), which the CT Courts don't recognise.If you haven't already done so,I think you should contact his family or support group. I am sure they will welcome you onboard as indeed a close friend.
Posted by: Doug | September 17, 2008 6:50 PM
Hi close, thanks. I am aware that he passed those tests. But I think someone should pay his accuser another visit to explain what's happening, and to ask her once again to recant. Certified letter or something. Can someone sue her and drag her into court? Is there anyone on Bill's team in a position to do that?
Posted by: doug | September 18, 2008 2:11 PM
doug - no we can not pay her a visit. and even if we could she would not do anything as she is a very cold person. to do what she has done makes her the most evil person i have ever heared of.and i am sure she knows all about his condition.
the issue is that bills supporters have funded all his attorneys and living expenses so far so the funds are not there at present. however there are many things in the pipeline to address this. if you know of any attorneys who would take on a case on a pro bono let us know through the web site contact details, but to save his life time is running out.
Posted by: dan | September 18, 2008 4:20 PM
the last comment was by me i put doug by accident
Posted by: Doug | September 18, 2008 5:16 PM
OK, what's the status of any appeal on the decision that put him in prison in the first place?
It sounds to me like he should have fired his lawyer. Mistrial? Is there a way to show the lawyer was incompetent to get a new trial?
I'm coming into Mr. Coleman's situation kind of late, obviously, but it seems like a lot of energy has been spent in court fighting for his right to starve to death. What about spending some of that energy on getting an appeal going? What about the CT Supreme Court?
Posted by: dan | September 19, 2008 4:42 AM
doug
visit the web site
http://crawldog.com/billcolemaninnocentmanwronfullyconvicted/index.php
there is a habeas appeal pending but bill does not hold much hope as he has no faith in the system. there has been a lot of effort over the past 4 years to stop him going on this protest and also to get his case investigated.
Posted by: dan | September 19, 2008 11:23 AM
click on the following
http://www.ctnewsjunkie.com/opinion/oped_hearing_bill_colemans_hun.php#more